Paul's Bribery

Leo Volont

Registered Senior Member
Paul’s Bribery

Acts Chapter 11 is just so many details and so most readers scan over it lightly, but there is, at the very end of the Chapter, some info that is critical to place in context.

Chapter 11 is about of equal distance between Chapters 9, where we are regaled with amusing story that Paul changes his murderous and conniving life because he fell off his horse, and Chapter 15 where Peter petitions James to give Paul a Limited Franchise Letter to establish a Gentile Branch of The Church. To understand why these Apostles would so honor the Murderer and Persecutor of Christ and Christians, we need to look between these Chapters 9 and 15 to discern what happened.

Turn to Chapter 11 and we find that Paul collected up money from all Greek Ionia and carried it down to Jerusalem himself and plopped it on Peter’s desk.

In a perfect world we would suppose that money would not buy influence. But what does the Book of Acts tell us about Peter? At the end of Chapter 4 we find that Barnabas whetted the monetary appetite of Peter by selling off his entire estate and giving the money over to Peter. Then, Chapter 5, the very next page, we find that Peter had grown arrogant enough to expect that total confiscation should be the norm in Christian Charity. When Ananias and Sapphira were pressured to sell their entire estate and hand the money over to Peter, Peter discovered that they had held back a small fraction that they thought was too slight to notice. But Peter was apparently of the temperament to notice small amounts of money, and had the couple murdered for holding out.

Now, consider. Up to this point the Church had never committed violence against a member. This was virtually the Cain and Able episode for the Church. The Church had lost its innocence. It must have been widely spoken of. And the act was probably seen to be widely unpopular. The Community of Pharisees which had apparently felt it necessary to back off and allow the Church to establish itself and grow, now, after Peter began his Reign of Terror, felt justified in instigating its Persecutions of the Church, which would bring Paul to fame. Paul, hearing the same gossip as everybody else, would well remember Peter’s explicit weakness – that he would kill for money.

So, when people claim that Paul is equal to God, it is only right that they should remember that Scripture itself puts Paul’s career into a more correct context.
 
James R said:
Does anybody claim that?

Every Protestant does!

What do you think it means when they claim that ALL SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD?

Now the Catholics have always preferred to think of Scripture as Reference Material in which it could be evaluated in context. It was understood that Christ outranked Paul.

However, in the 16th Century when the Prots overthrew the influence of Christ and the Catholic Church as set up the Doctrines of Paul to reign supreme, they required a Justifying Doctrine whereby Paul's Writings could be lifted up, and Christ's Teachings lowered -- at least to an equality where a choice might be made on an even plane. This was THE DOCTRINE OF ALL SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD. It effectively Deified Paul.

You all talk about Scripture as the Word of God, but it never occurs to you that it would make Paul effectively Divine. You prots don't think much, do you?
 
Maybe. Because someone's not thinking.

Maybe we should start calling the pentateuch the Word of Moses, Psalms the Word of David, and Matthew the Word of ... well, Matthew.

Peter did not kill anyone. We are told Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied to God. We are told this because they acted on the example of a certain Barnabas.
Acts 4:32-
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.​
That was the spirit and context (speaking of "correct contexts") in which these things happened. Why would Ananias sell a piece of property with the same intention, and keep some for himself? Who was trying to fool? Not the church, not Peter...

It was Paul who wrote to Timothy:
1 Timothy 6:7-
For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.​
 
Leo Volont said:
Then, Chapter 5, the very next page, we find that Peter had grown arrogant enough to expect that total confiscation should be the norm in Christian Charity. When Ananias and Sapphira were pressured to sell their entire estate and hand the money over to Peter..
Acts 5
1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property 2 With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3 Then Peter said ... 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing?​
...they had held back a small fraction that they thought was too slight to notice.
Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."​
Why the lies, Leo? What made you think of doing such a thing?
 
Last edited:
Leo,

I have a strong feeling that you are just being jealous (and knowing it, what a shame!) that some other people had more guts than you. :p
 
Jenyar said:
Why the lies, Leo? What made you think of doing such a thing?

So, Jenyar, what is your point?... that you think Peter was justified to kill those people because they held back a tiny percentage, or that they lied about it?

My point was that Peter got started murdering people over money -- not giving it or not telling the truth about it is hardly much of a distinction when compared to Peter's wild and insane response. Who WOULDN'T henseforth know that Peter was obsessed with MONEY? Certainly Satan, and Paul, saw in Peter's compulsive greed an opportunity to PURCHASE Antichristical Doctrine.

The Limited Franchise Letter of Acts 15 was effectively sold to Paul for the sack of money brought to Peter in Acts 11.

Truer words were never spoken.
 
RosaMagika said:
Leo,

I have a strong feeling that you are just being jealous (and knowing it, what a shame!) that some other people had more guts than you. :p

Actually I am an old man and have survived many who have had more courage than myself. I have grown to understand that prudence and caution are the more life-affirming virtues.

However, be that as it may, I can't really say that I understand to what you may be referring. Jealous? Jealous of what? Guts? What is anybody doing that I appear to be afraid to do? I can't figure out what you are talking about?
 
I have never heard Paul is equal to God. You are making that assumption without any basis. Is scripture said to be the word of God? Yes. Did Paul write scripture? Yes and no. Paul’s hand wrote it but the Protestants believe that it was God who guided his hand. In essence God wrote it even though he used Paul to accomplish it.

Leo
Now the Catholics have always preferred to think of Scripture as Reference Material in which it could be evaluated in context. It was understood that Christ outranked Paul.


Now that is funny since it is the Catholics that pray to Peter not the Protestants.

Truth be told, most religions believe that their holy scriptures are written by their respective god through a particular person. The act of writing the scriptures also does not require any holiness or anything like that either. If you are to believe the bible anyway it is impossible to be perfect anyway. Gabriel brought Allah’s writings to Muhammad and God brought his to Peter. Where is the problem with that?
 
I Am F_AQ2 said:
I have never heard Paul is equal to God.

But that is what the Doctrine of ALL SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD amounts to, isn't it?

Protestants will quote Paul as though he is of equal authority as Christ. To them it is all THE WORD OF GOD. In fact, most Protestants never bother quoting Christ. All Significant Doctrine comes out of Paul. No Protestant Doctrine, and few Catholic Doctrines can be supported without resort to Paul.

If all of their Religion is based on the Word of Paul, does this not make Paul their God? Or at least God's Mouthpiece. And all of that while ignoring the matter that Paul consistently and everywhere contradicts the Teachings of Christ.
 
I Am F_AQ2 said:
Now that is funny since it is the Catholics that pray to Peter not the Protestants.

Who told you that!?

I know no Cathelic who wears a St. Peter Medal. I own a St. Peter Statue and I use it as a door prop.

But, we do need to talk about Intercession of the Saints. Cathelics believe that there is Life after Death. We demonstrate that belief by believing that people survive their death and live on... the very good ones as Saints. Because they still Survive in Spirit, we believe that we may speak to them. Do you call 'speaking' 'praying'? It seems an odd thing to say. One 'prays' to God, but one 'speaks' to other people and other souls. Do you think it wrong and sinful to speak to other people? No. Then why is it wrong to speak to the Saints. Do you think it wrong to ask other people for favors? No. Then why is it wrong to ask a favor of a Saint.

The problem with Prots is that they don't really believe in life after death. If they did it would be inevitable for them to believe that they could communicate with souls who have passed on.

With Catholics, it is more than just asserting their beliefs. The Saints often intercede without being asked. We know of their Survival because we see them and hear them during their Visits to the living. Why do not Protestants experience the same from their Dead Prots? I suppose it is because Prots do not enjoy the same Blessed Destiny after Death that Catholics are entitled to. God has apparently not chosen to reward the Protestant Rebellion which destroyed and brought an end to The 1000 Year Reign of Christ on Earth in the Entity of His Holy Catholic Church.
 
Originally posted by: Leo
But that is what the Doctrine of ALL SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD amounts to, isn't it?

Protestants will quote Paul as though he is of equal authority as Christ. To them it is all THE WORD OF GOD. In fact, most Protestants never bother quoting Christ. All Significant Doctrine comes out of Paul. No Protestant Doctrine, and few Catholic Doctrines can be supported without resort to Paul.

Hmm, I’ve never heard anybody say that before unless you are saying that they quote the bible then my earlier post would explain that, not that you read it I guess.

Originally posted by: Leo
Who told you that!?

I know no Cathelic who wears a St. Peter Medal. I own a St. Peter Statue and I use it as a door prop.

All the Catholics I have ever met pray to the saints. My own grandfather prayed to a saint (I don’t know which one) because he had lost his wallet and that peticular saint was supposed to help find things. One of my friends was taken by her father when she was little and her grandmother bought a candle and prayed to the same saint to find her. The list goes on.

Originally posted by: Leo
One 'prays' to God, but one 'speaks' to other people and other souls. Do you think it wrong and sinful to speak to other people? No. Then why is it wrong to speak to the Saints. Do you think it wrong to ask other people for favors? No. Then why is it wrong to ask a favor of a Saint.

Could you please explain the difference. I had thought that it would be obvious but then I realized that the line is not so clear to me! Go figure :)

Originally posted by: Leo
The problem with Prots is that they don't really believe in life after death. If they did it would be inevitable for them to believe that they could communicate with souls who have passed on.

That is not true. Protestants believe in a life after death. They simply do not believe that you pray to anybody other than God. I think they believe that you can communicate also but not that they have a direct influence in the physical world. That is God’s area of expertise.
 
Back
Top